"I don't know anything about pixels but I do know about price and I dopn't think it's fair to say that you can get the same image from a camera 1500 bucks cheaper when you have to buy an 800 adapter for it to get a comparable image, and even then it fisheyes on the wide side."

And with the canon you have to by another $1500 lense to even stand in the same room with someone. 50mm eq at the wide end to me is not "wide angle".

Stefan, you said, "I don't see anybody even touch the CCD size debate,..."

Evidently, you didn't read my post above. Allow me to state it one more time:

According to the Panasonic AG-DVX100A Owner's Manual, page 69, under "Specifications, General," the total (gross) number of pixels per CCD is 410,000. The number of effective pixels is 380,000.

On the XL2, the total number of pixels per CCD is 680,000. The effective number of pixels is 460,800 per CCD. So there is a combined increase of 1,268,400 effective pixels in the XL2 over the DVX100A.

Therefore, the DVX100A is *not* using the total number of pixels per CCD as earlier claimed in this thread. Hence, the XL2 is using more pixels per image than the DVX100A.

Jay

1,268,400?? how you doing your math?

"how you doing your math?"

Very poorly, Yang. Thanks for pointing that out! That would come to a total difference of only 242,400 pixels, rather than the million+.

I messed up. Sorry!

Still the XL2 is using more pixels than the DVX100 and neither is using the total number per CCD.

The only accurate way to compare the two would be in a test where both cameras shot the same subject and the video was then screened on matching monitors.

Jay

The pixel debate is rather fun to watch. For years XL1 users would say "who cares about the # of pixels" (because they only had 250,000). Now it's all "Hah, look, we have 680,000 pixels!"

The point is, using megapixel CCD's HURTS image quality. Using too few pixels hurts image quality (by giving a softer image). You want a CCD that has just enough pixels to cover the frame (in DV's case, you want at least 350,000 pixels). You want those pixels to be as big as possible. Fewer pixels means that they can be bigger, but you want enough of them to provide adequate resolution. Tiny pixels can't gather much light so latitude and low-light performance suffer. The PDX10 is about a stop less sensitive than the PD100 that it replaced, primarily because it has a megapixel CCD.

Megapixel CCD's are good for providing high-resolution still pictures, but not good for video. There's more to good video than the # of pixels on the CCD.

You'll never see a megapixel CCD in a broadcast camera. Broadcast cameras all have CCD's with enough pixels to cover the frame, and not much more. Even on a massive 2/3" 16:9 chip, you'll only find around 500,000 pixels: just enough to cover the frame.

But it's all fairly irrelevant until we get to see the two cameras side-by-side, shooting the same subject under the same conditions, each with a skilled operator who knows how to get the best from the camera. That's the only way to know whether one is superior to the other -- anything else is just speculation.

Pixel Count
 

At first, sorry for my bad english...
I had a XL-1s for about two years and purchased a DVX a year ago. I know both cameras. I really would like to have kept the xl-1s, because I loved its design, thogh being heavy on the front, all the controls are well laid out. As one example, after one year of shooting with the DVX, I still have to seek the iriswheel, when shooting handheld.
I also bought the anamorphic of the DVX and was very disappointed because of its poor design. There was dust between the glasses and after opening the anamorphic for blowing the dust off I found that the glasses can be easily misaligned. They are only fixed by the pressure of the plastic cabinet. And while shooting you have to take care that there is no dust on the front glass, because the depth of field is so much inreased, of no filter holder for protecting it and the anamorphic loosens a bit after some time - feels like shooting 16mm, at least in regard in taking care for your equipment...
Before buying the DVX I tried two other cameras for replacing the Canon XL-1s, the JVC GY-DV500 and the PD-150. But the DVX offered the best image quality to my eye. And all three deliverd better Images than theXL-1s, sorry to say.
So, whilst speculating about buying the "AE" version of the DVX, I was excited about the fact, that Canon released the XL-2. And even simultaneously in the U.S and Europe!

BUT:
After loading down the natively coded DV-streams Simon Beer posted, and the Tiffs from PAL Material available on the net, I again had the impression, that Canon missed the goal, at least for the PAL-version:
The DVX has 450000 effective pixels.
The XL-2 has 410000 effective pixels (4:3 mode)
Both manufacturers use the Pixel-Shift technology. But still the DVX has more pixels to work with. And even though the pixel count of the
XL-2 is higher in 16:9 mode you can still can see the "blooming" of strong colours which was also typical for the XL-1s. In the review recently posted (07/21) the lawn shot at Pinewood has lost all details.
In the tiff of the clown Simon posted, you see heavy aliasing in the circles of the camera chart in the background (only horizontally, why? Is this an effect of downsamling 960 pixels to 720, which had to be done by the onboard electronics bevore delivering the image to tape?)
And in the 15sec. clip Simon also posted (clown25p.mov) the reds are artifacting. The dvx also tends to pixelate the reds, but not that much
And all images and clips I downloaded look a little bit greyish.
In the moment, it is like a déja vu from the days of the XL-1s:
Great camera in design and layout, not so good image quality compared to the competitors from Sony and Panasonic. I don´t think, an upcoming direct comparison between the DVX and the XL-2 will have another result.
This might be different for NTSC, because resolution in NTSC is not as high as in PAL. But from the first samples I got, I´d rather buy a DVX. (And hope that Century Optics releases a better anamorphic)
All the best,
Salar

As Barry and I both have said, "... it's all fairly irrelevant until we get to see the two cameras side-by-side..."

Anything else is a pissing contest. Therefore, I withdrawal from this "debate" (and I use the term loosely).

Jay

Sad to say, but, the amount of pixels, x low light level ability, does not equal an artistic brain acquiring an artistic image.

Over 40 years in the business, I have generally observed that most people have too much camera for there needs

yeah i share those sentiments robert, but i think those 'artist' need at least ONE cam to rule them all =^).

I don't agree. With an idear, any camera can do.

i think you mistook what i meant. i meant they should own @ least one themselves not that one brand/make should be above any of the others.